You aren’t reading the ram usage correctly you can’t compare xp and vista (windows 7) that way. Memory management is completely different. XP was designed to basically load the minimum into RAM keeping RAM free for programs, things would get cached on hard drive and so on.
Now we are in the multi-gigabye RAM world vista and 7 load up as much into RAM as possible this is not just system files but your frequently run programs lookup superfetch. If a program is not already cahced in memory and their isn’t enough free windows can just drop one of the cached programs freeing memory very quickly. This makes the whole system very responsive.
Makes you think why wasn’t this being done in windows xp (I suppsoe there wasn’t much RAM back then in comparison).
@vnuk Where did you hear something bad about windows 7? I read a lot about it and this was 90% positive. My own experience (using it as main-os since beta 1) is very positive as well.
@Jeff
Microsoft said that they changed the version number so slightly because they wanted to avoid further incompatibilities because software checks for the major-version. Changes in minor-version is much less a problem, so that every app that runs vista should run w7!
Windows 7 IS a major release, even when the version number doesn’t show it.
It’s amazing how hard they tried to convince that Vista was an outstanding OS (when in fact it sucks compared to XP) and now the new idea is that Seven is very different from Vista (when they are almost identical except for the taskbar and performance tweaks).
Yeah, Windows 7 is so awesome. 12 GiB to install practically nothing compared to Ubuntu’s full featured suite with 1/3rd of that size. Plus all that excellent closed source software and an OS that encourages malware to still take it over, since UAC can be turned off, since users are still mental defectives.
Really, how have we come to accept the idea that every few years all our tools are obsolete and must be thrown out? Can you imagine any other industry operating this way?
@Alex
The reason is the same for OS as it is for web browser. At some point, progress gets vastly more complicated when having to support older technology. If you don’t actually want to make progress, then you and Jeff don’t really disagree.
I’m definitely excited to check out Windows 7. I was supposed to play with the beta, but never really got around to it. I hear that the upgrade to Windows 7 is going to be ridiculously cheap though, which means I basically HAVE to pay for it.
Never would have thought I would pay for a Windows upgrade, but I most certainly will for this one!
It seems people love tossing ‘service pack’ around despite having no clue what it really means. If anything Windows 7 is the complete opposite of a service pack - name me one SP that has seriously overhauled the front end and left the back end relatively alone? Historically service packs are cumulative (security) patches rolled up into one download.
Please stop perpetuating the Apple and Linux zealots fud as it marginalises what is for once a decent MS release. Using their SP logic pretty much every software release past 1.00 is a service pack unless it is a total rewrite.
“OSX is just BSD with a Service Pack”
“Photoshop CS4 is just Photoshop 5.0 with a Service Pack”
“Firefox 3.5 is just Mozilla with a Service Pack”
“Safari is just Konqueror with a Service Pack”
"Ubuntu is just Debian with a Serive Pack"
etc.
It’s just FUD and services no purpose (not even reality) except to be a cheap jab at Windows.
“It’s not a service pack for Vista, it’s Windows Vista SE, like Windows 98 SE.”
So despite being universally accepted as being an order of magnitude better than Vista in terms of looks, usability and hardware requirements it’s just ‘Vista SE’. Right.
Go back to the Ubuntuforums to convince people the superiority of The Gimp.
@LavosPhoenix:
Users aren’t typically mental defectives, but people who aren’t as interested in computers as you or me, and who just want to get something done. Microsoft started with single-user single-tasking OSes, and even while moving towards having a modern OS has supported apps written as if they owned the machine, or at least had to run with maximum privileges. UAC is a compromise between actual security and accomodating apps that people need. We can criticize Microsoft for how it handled this (and I often do), but it isn’t an easy situation to handle.
Linux benefits from the Unix culture, in which apps run with limited privileges, and never had that problem. Apple changed to Mac OSX by allowing imperfect backwards compatibility (the Classic environment) for several years (until the Mac switched from PowerPC to Intel chips). Microsoft can’t follow the Apple way without messing up a lot of customers, being more of an enterprise OS than Mac OSX.
A lot of the recent history of Microsoft has been dealing with backward compatibility. Unless you realize that, you won’t understand what Microsoft is doing with Windows.
Yes XP is stable and easy to use, but it’s also built for ancient technology. Time to move on and use the tech we have today.
What’s the problem with a 12Gb install? I have 1.25Tb in my PC and I don’t care much about a few Gb’s extra for the OS. It doesn’t have to be a 4Gb complete install just because it can be. I want full fancyness. Windows 7’s interface is fast, that is what I care about.
I’m not eager to see everyone drop XP, I don’t care that much. There’s just a big risk with sticking to an OS forever: Once you HAVE to upgrade you’ll face an OS that’s 4 generations further and it will be even more difficult to adapt.
I think you’re being a bit unfair to XP - I’d actually date its maturity as an OS to when SP2 came out, and it has been updated and patched pretty well since then (much more so than previous operating systems had been).
While I do agree that we all have to move on (I switched to Ubuntu following the 9.04 release), XP still is a useful and decent OS.
I also don’t think I’ll take Win7, though - MS still have to deliver the new filesystem and graphics revolution that they promised more than five years ago for me to really consider before I take another MS OS.
I’ve noticed that the products from Microsoft had gone down in quality since the post XP period. The all time low being the initial launch of Vista.
The consumer backlash has been a major wake up call for the company and I’ve also noticed since the launch of the 07 products (like Office 07) the quality and the overall user experience has improved considerably. I’ve also used 7 beta and i agree that even though the front end has not gotten a major overhaul (discounting the task bar) 7 just FEELS good.
One other thing, is this observation of worsening and then getting better products over the recent years reflect the state of affairs at Microsoft?
“(I just hope the next version of Windows doesn’t repeat the Windows ME experience).”
Best comment ever.
Windows Lovers (Like Jeff) are excited because they finally got an OS that more or less, performs decently. Until the registry (which still exists) starts choking again…
I’ve used W7 since Beta1/RC and it DOES work better than vista, way better. I hate Vista, it’s as bad as Windows ME was. A disaster in every aspect. Bad drivers, bad launch, bad marketing bad response, etc.
Win7 apparently improves all that (at least in RC stages). You get the feeling that everything works ok and the UI is way better (Taskbar == no no situation).
However, don’t forget that it is still Windows Behind the Scenes. Those who don’t like it, will not find a new world to explore. C:\Windows is still there… so is \system32…
Get ready for Wi-Fi driver hell with W7. I’ve installed the beta/rc in a different number of laptops and only one (HP) could use the WiFi out of the box. The others? Hunting high and low for Vista / XP drivers.
Surprisingly, some boxes (a Toshiba Tablet PC) only were able to use Wi-Fi with the Windows XP Driver…
I’d use W7 if I had to use Windows. But I use OS X and I find it vastly superior in terms of usability and technology; despite its own set of annoying bugs and inconsistencies.
After trying/seeing the disaster called Vista and hearing only
bad things about Windows 7 - I’m keeping my XP for at least a
couple of years.
That’s funny, I’ve had the opposite experience. I have been using Windows 7 in various states for months now, and it’s been a great experience. Windows 7 even does a lot of stuff better than OS X (my primary OS). Everyone I have talked to around the office (a non-MS shop, mind you) has been raving about it. Virtually every review I have read from reputable magazines and websites has been good to excellent. There are a couple quirks here and there that will be worked out, but certainly nothing major, nothing to justify sticking with XP.
Add to that the fact that you implied that you have not even bothered to install Windows 7 and only “tried” Windows Vista (before the kinks were worked out, no doubt), and your comment means zilch.
Jumping on the “XP forever, screw Vista” bandwagon simply cannot be justified now that Windows 7 is here. It really is an improvement over Vista, and even over XP.
